01/19/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 11 of 16)

0063 What does the woman want?

Trees are all over the garden. But, there are two notable botanical specimens. There is the tree of life, somewhere in the periphery. There is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, placed right in the center. So, I already know what the woman wants. She wants to be center stage.

0064 The tree in the center of the garden has not attracted Adam’s curiosity, so far. He is happy with a tasty garden, attentive domesticates, and the rib-helper. Wow, she is the most.

0065 Yes, the woman has desire. Sure, the trees are good for food and beautiful to behold. In Genesis 2:9, the author uses the word, “nechmad”, meaning desirable.

0066 Then, the woman enters into conversation with the serpent, who also has desires. Its desire is to manipulate her desire. He wants to pitch a sale. Immediately before Eve seals the deal, Eve notices that the fruit is “ta’awah” (desire) to the eyes and “nechmad” (desirable) to make one wise. Then, the serpent closes the pitch with a promise that the purchase will open her eyes. She will be like the gods, knowing good and evil.

0067 Then, Adam joins in and the eyes of both are opened.

They realize that they are exposed.

0068 This word, “teshuqah” (desire), shows up again in Eve’s chastisement, as well as in the Song of Songs. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the same word gains creepier overtones. The clay, within the human person, desires to return to dust. This is an insight_2V.

0069 But, what about the conditions_2H?

Is Genesis 3 about human sin?

Or, is it about giving one’s sons and daughters a little hint about the nature of desire?

There is a difference between desirable and desire. Plus, the serpent can close on both.

01/18/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 12 of 16)

0070 In chapter five, Mark Smith asks, “When does the story of human sin begin in Genesis?”

0071 At this point, conditions further clarify.

The first audiences for the early stories of Genesis are children. The first authors are their mothers, the daughters of Seth. Eve is their great-great-…-great grandmother. The stories convey to each child this lineage, a direct descent to this mother, who is center stage. Eve is more than a foolish woman who talks to serpents. Eve is your mother as well.

0072 What does it mean to be a mother, a woman, cursed under Eve’s indictment?

A Primer on the Family presents the family as a prototype of the corporation, the content level of the organization tier. Eve, the woman, is the producer. Her man is the management. Her children are the service, or, in today’s terms, the human resources. Eve does not change the centrality of the mother. She magnifies it.

She offers a warning.

0073 The story of Eve’s temptation offers many lessons, including ones on the nature of desire. As Smith points out, Genesis 3 portrays a deeply disturbing psychological narrative. Don’t all good fairy tales?

Plus, I add, Eve’s narrative, along with other Genesis stories, captures the weirdness of the constellation of unconstrained social complexity during the Ubaid. Adam and Eve are made in paradise, eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and are expelled. Neither Genesis 2 nor 3 use the word, “sin”. The label, “evil”, is only mentioned in the name of the infamous tree.

Afterwards, Eve bears two children, Cain and Abel. Eve is the producer.

0074 “Sin” is mentioned in Genesis 4, along with the word for desire, “teshuqah”. Desire appears in the temptation of Eve and in her rebuke, where God says, “Your desire will be for your man.” Yes, the woman will desire her man to be her manager. There is no sin in that.

So, where does the word, “sin”, first appear?

When Cain, the gardener, complains about God preferring burnt offerings of meat, God offers a revealing repost, saying (more or less), “If you do what is right, you can bear it. If you do not do right, sin crouches at your door. Its desire (teshuqah) is for you, but you can rule over it.”

The word, “sin”, appears for the first time. It does so in conjunction with a desire that crouches, like a predator, at Cain’s threshold. Cain can rule it. Or, it can rule Cain.

We all know what happens next.

0075 The daughters of Seth do not pull punches. This conjunction of “sin” and “desire” is so provocative that I wonder, what child would not remember it, later, as an adult?

Even more intriguing is how this conjunction exposes a disquieting reality within the Ubaid’s spiral towards unconstrained social complexity. The idea of one brother killing the other is not out of the question. Why? Such killingis an artifact that validates what the murderous brother has been telling himself.

0076 In hand-speech talk, gesture-words picture or point to their referents. So, the words cannot lie about what they refer to.

In speech-alone talk, spoken words do not picture or point to their referents. Instead, we construct artifacts that validate our projection of meaning, presence and message. We speak, and the world comes into creation. Not just any creation. Our creation. Our imagination constructs artifacts that validate our spoken words.

0077 Oh, those damned artifacts.

When fatty portions are added to a fire, the fire jumps to life.

When cabbage is added to a fire, the fire smolders.

0078 One son does not talk to himself. Instead, he praises God.

The other mutters under his breath. He complains about God’s rejection of his artifacts.

0079 The children hear a fairy tale, telling them of dangers in their upcoming lives.

The mothers hear the tragedy of two sons, where one rules over his desires and the other does not.

0080 This is one of the poisonous fruits of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of speech-alone talk. I can create my own world through my own symbolic actions that simultaneously do not honor God and open the door to the one whose desire is for my desire.

Sin crouches at Cain’s door. It desires to speak to him.

Behold the fruits of the tree of death.

01/17/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 13 of 16)

0081 Mark Smith points out other links between Genesis 3 and 4.

When God rebukes Adam, He curses the ground.

When God confronts Cain, He says, “…now you are cursed from the ground…”

God expels Adam and Eve from Eden.

Cain replies to God, saying, “…you have driven me out…”

Adam and Eve settle east of Eden.

Cain goes to live in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

0082 Genesis 4 does not elaborate on the crouching sin. I suppose Abel’s murder is plain enough.

Smith notes that Abel’s offering is pleasing to the Lord.

Smith adds that God does not punish Cain for murdering Abel.

Smith does not say what happens next. He is tracking two words, “sin” and “evil”.

0083 However, what happens next provides insight into the author-ity of Genesis 4. After the murder, God gives Cain a mark, deterring others from killing Cain. Cain founds a city. Within a few generations, another murder occurs. Lamech, who has two wives, murders a man with none.

0084 Here is a critique of the social conditions of the Ubaid. Increasing labor and social specializations lead to greater wealth and power. The haves learn to take from the have nots.

01/15/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 14 of 16)

0085 In chapter six, Mark Smith asks, “Where does human evil begin in Genesis?”

In Genesis 3, Eve takes the fruit.

In Genesis 6, divine sons take beautiful daughters.

0086 Genesis 6:2 describes divine males commandeering human females.

What does this mean?

An extrapolation from Lamech offers an answer. These men are “divine” in name only. These wealthy and powerful “gods” have designs on women who attract their attention.

Does this sound vaguely contemporary?

0087 Then, there is the word for design, “yester”.

In Genesis 6:5, God admits that every design of the thoughts of civilized hearts is only evil, continually.

In Genesis 8:21, God, having let loose the civilization-destroying flood, regrets the act, but does not change the diagnosis. The design (yester) of the human heart is to evil from its youth.

Its youth?

Think of the start of the Ubaid.

Unconstrained social complexity is a condiiton_2H.

0088 Yes, evil in Genesis, associates to design.

The same word, “yester”, appears in Genesis 2:7, when God designs a man from earthen materials.

Smith notes that “yester”, design, typically applies to craftsmanship. With the story of Noah, craftsmanship applies to thoughts. So I ask, “What tool shapes thought?” The answer is spoken words. This is an insight_2V.

0089 Various origin myths of the ancient Near East mention the Great Flood of Mesopotamia as a civilization-changing event. By the time of the flood, evil and design are already joined. Everyone knows it.

0090 As far as Mark Smith is concerned, by the end of chapter six, he covers the genesis of “evil”, “sin” and the fall(out). He has only “good” and “original sin” left.

01/13/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 16 of 16)

0096 Does the name of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil say it all?

On one hand, since the time of Adam, knowledge continually increases, along with labor and social specializations. Civilizations gain wealth and power.

On the other hand, since the time of Adam, evil designs the thoughts in our hearts, because its desire is for our desire. These designs cohere to the traditional notion of original sin. Civilizations corrupt from within.

0097 In Mark S. Smith’s book, the text ends in the middle of the bound volume. Then, the endnotes begin. This is the work of a scholar. It does not step out of the closed loop of retrieval.

0098 Yet, this is precisely what happens in the fictional account of the first singularity, An Archaeology of the Fall (available at smashwords and other e-book vendors). The first singularity is a scientific hypothesis, addressing the question, “Why is our current Lebenswelt not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?”

0099 When retrieving an author, both insights and conditions are valuable. If indeed, the conditions are as proposed in this blog, then the insights allow a re-articulation of the concept of the Fall, and perhaps, of original sin.

There is more to Genesis 3 than meets the eye.

0100 My thanks to Mark S. Smith for his well-documented work.

12/24/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 21 of 38)

0071 Gordon Wenham begins his interpretation of Gen 1-11 with the genealogies. The genealogies seem to be minor elements, since they do directly tell stories. However, they are significant as a genre.

Here is the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility.

genealogy_1c( insights for reader_1b( Biblical witness_1a))

0072 To me, the principle of genealogy_1c directs the reader_1b to consider the possibilities inherent in a family tradition_1a. The intended audience is the witness’s family.

0073 Wenham notices two obvious patterns.

Linear genealogies connect the generations.

Segmented genealogies make claims to territories or skills.

These topics, descent, territory and skills, must be relevant to the family.

0074 Also, there are less-obvious patterns. The number seven stands out, starting with the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. Tens and twenties are also favored.

Are these relevant to the family’s pedigree, territory or skills?

In a world that is constantly and unpredictably specializing, who would be sensitive to repetitions of particular numbers?

May I guess?

The numbers have mystical significance.

What specialization might concern itself with mystical significance?

0075 I go back to the metaphor of a river, flowing through time, for the consequences of the first singularity. Gravity is a metaphor for the actualization of the potential for labor and social specialization. Eddies and whirlpools are metaphors for long-lived spontaneous structures, such as markets, temples and thrones. Spontaneous structures include associations of scribes, canal builders and maintainers, farmers, warriors and the like.

A family lives within one of these long-lived whirlpools. Each generation preserves the witness of the family through routinized stories about what the ancestors witnessed.

0076 Does that fit the definition of the term, “protohistory”?

12/23/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 22 of 38)

0077 After noting the character of the genealogies, Gordon Wenham examines Gen 1-11, starting with the Creation Story, Gen 1:1-2:3.

Wenham sees the Creation Story as an overture to the symphony of Gen 1-11, as well as the entire Pentateuch.

On the one hand, the Creation Story departs from other written origin stories of the ancient Near East.

On the other hand, the Creation Story coheres to the literary styles of these extra-Biblical narratives.

0078 To me, the Creation Story is the only written origin story of the ancient Near East that places humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. To the ancients, the Creation Story describes God building a tent (or temple) of creation. To moderns, the Creation Story tells a progressive tale, reminiscent of evolution. Some associate a day to an evolutionary era. To postmoderns, the articulated structure of the Creation Story aesthetically matches the bony structure of the evolution of our world, especially when the correspondence is viewed through the three types of natural sign: icon, index and symbol.

0079 The hypothesis of the first singularity takes the implications one step further. Humans, created in the image of God,appear in this dramatic unfolding of a narrative that artistically corresponds, in the way of signs, to the evolutionary record. These humans correspond to Adam, before the Fall, living in paradise. The tree of life resides in Eden.

On top of that, if, as Thomists postulate, original justice defines the state of Adam before the Fall, then original justiceshould also apply as a noumenal description of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. This is discussed in Comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) “Aquinas, Original Sin and the Challenge of Evolution”, available at smashwords.

12/22/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 23 of 38)

0080 The appearance of the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia marks the start of the first singularity. Development towards unconstrained social complexity begins immediately, and imperceptibly, like gravity moving water in a river. The narratives in Gen 2.4-11:9 describe eddies and whirlpools, events in the flow of time.

0081 Wenham argues that the term, “myth”, is not appropriate. I use the term, “fairy tales”. Why? Mothers tell their children fairy tales.

The Creation Story is told from father to child. It is referenced later in the Pentateuch. Moses codifies the seventh day as a day of rest.

In contrast, the stories of Adam and Eve are told from mother to child. They are not put into writing until the Pentateuch is woven together into a coherent whole. Indeed, vivid reminders of the Adam and Eve are found in the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

0082 What does this imply?

The stories of Adam and Eve belong to the genre of fairy tale. Once routinized, fairy tales may remain stable for thousands of years. These early stories are like ancient zircons intercalated into recent sedimentary rock.

With the hypothesis of the first singularity, inquiry turns completely around, just as in geology, where zircons offer clues to environments far earlier than the rocks in which they are embedded. The stories of Adam and Eve offer fairy-tale clues to the start of our current Lebenswelt.

12/21/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 24 of 38)

0083 Gordon Wenham asks (more or less), “Can we think of Gen 1-11 as a genealogy, adorned with narratives?”

The literature of the ancient Near East offers parallels. The Sumerian King List directly compares to Biblical genealogies. Other writings of the ancient Near East coincide with Biblical narratives.

0084 For example, the Sumerian Flood Story is similar to Noah’s Flood Story. In terms of content, they refer to an identical prehistoric event.

0085 Yes, this fits Wenham’s overall label of “protohistory” for Gen 1-11.

I return to the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility, found in day 20 of this series.

protohistory_1c( insights for reader_1b( Biblical witness_1a)

There is an advantage to Wenham’s term, “protohistory”. It expands the field of inquiry to include all discovered written origin myths of the ancient Near East.

0086 From my point of view, the discovery of these extra-Biblical materials is nothing short of miraculous.

These writings are preserved as cuneiform inscriptions on clay tablets, fired into bricks with the immolation of a royal library, and buried in ruins for thousands of years. Only after Western archaeologists recover tablets and clever people figure out ways to translate them, do these stories come back to life.

0087 Who knows about these tablets?

At the time when the Babylonian exile ends and the Pentateuch takes final form, no one knows about these tablets.

At the time of Christ, no one knows about these buried tablets.

The same goes for Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

It is as if God concealed these tablets for the modern West to discover, in the Age of Ideas, after the successful birth of science.

12/20/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 25 of 38)

0088 Why do all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East depict a recent creation of humans (with the exception of the Creation Story)?

The hypothesis of the first singularity offers an explanation. The hypothesis works as a perspective_2c, that virtually brings a situation-dependent interpretation_2b into relation with the contents of the Biblical text_2a.

Figure 09

0089 Of course, the hypothesis is not the only perspective-level actuality_2c.

Another option is God’s Word_2c.

0090 With the passing of the Age of Ideas, the normal context of our current Lebenswelt_3c does not rule out either actuality_2c.

Does the potential of ‘genre as classification’_1c, seem to favor the natural approach of the hypothesis_2c over the supernatural approach of God’s Word_2c?

I wonder.

Well, the name of the book that I am looking at could be titled, “Genesis: Does Genre_1c Contribute to Insights_1b into the Biblical Witness_1a?”.

Plus, the arguments from the contributors seem to give a qualified “yes”.

0091 In other words, the concept of genre_1c gives the reader insight_1b into how the witness is viewing ‘something real’_1a.

0092 The concept of the first singularity_1c offers a hypothesis on the nature of ‘something real’_1a.

At the same time, the hypothesis does not describe the event from within.

Instead, the Genesis witness_1a describes the emergence and fall of Sumerian civilization, the original fruit of the first singularity_2c, from God’s point of view_3c.

So, the answer to the question (in 0090) remains unclear.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Tag Archives: interpretation